Brexit discussion thread II

ancapailldorcha

The point about Greece may not be as solid as I thought then. However, I think it's fair to say that many people on the EU-UK divide would much rather that Brexit simply went away rather than proceeding with it.

steddyeddy

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't know. The UK is a very big slice of the European pie to lose. Merkel didn't seem keen even on Greece leaving a few years ago, never mind an economy like the UK's. Obviously, they'll be keen to reap as many rewards as possible but the European project has no doubt taken a serious hit with Brexit.

Very true. This is bad for everyone.

Peregrinus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The point about Greece may not be as solid as I thought then. However, I think it's fair to say that many people on the EU-UK divide would much rather that Brexit simply went away rather than proceeding with it.

Honestly, I think they'd have mixed feelings.

Their heads would say, yeah, if the UK were to change its mind even now, and call the whole thing off, that would be a good thing for the Union.

But their guts would say Christ, here we go again. Say what you like about Brexit, but at least it means the end of the constant whinging, the throwing of toys out of the pram, the table-thumping, the demands for rebates and concessions and exceptions, the gutless leaders who gamble with referenda about EU membership in order to avoid facing party divisions. We thought at least we were getting out of all that.

It's an academic question, since I don't see any realistic scenario in which the UK would call this off between now and March 2019. But for all their dismay at the time of the vote, I think a lot of people in the Union have reconciled themselves to the UK's departure, and see the bright side, and would be a bit discomfited if it were to be called off now.

A recent opinon poll in France found that more people welcomed the UK's departure than regretted it. That's public opinion, of course; it doesn't necessarily reflect the establishment view. And it's just one country. But it may be a straw in the wind.

murphaph

First Up wrote: »

It is not in anyone or any country's interest to make UK driving licences a problem and it will not be a bargaining chip in reaching an "everything is agreed" conclusion.

My opening (and final) contribution to this topic was that driving licences are not an EU/Brexit issue and that comment stands.

It so obviously is a Brexit issue. It's s relatively minor one but there are many more.

ancapailldorcha

Peregrinus wrote: »

Honestly, I think they'd have mixed feelings.

Their heads would say, yeah, if the UK were to change its mind even now, and call the whole thing off, that would be a good thing for the Union.

I'm not so sure. A restraining British voice might not be such a bad thing though that's now academic.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But their guts would say Christ, here we go again. Say what you like about Brexit, but at least it means the end of the constant whinging, the throwing of toys out of the pram, the table-thumping, the demands for rebates and concessions and exceptions, the gutless leaders who gamble with referenda about EU membership in order to avoid facing party divisions. We thought at least we were getting out of all that.

I don't know. We've seen that the Brexiteers had sweet feck all in their hand. They've been bluffing only now they've been called. There are no trade deals in the works, no plan to tap into emerging markets and not even a chance of bolstering the embattled NHS.

It was such a sweet deal for the UK. Don't want to pay full whack? Here's a rebate. Want full access to Europe's markets? Sorted. Want to export your old and infirm while importing the young and educated? No bother. The British wielded and ungodly amount of influence and have surrendered all of it for absolutely nothing.

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's an academic question, since I don't see any realistic scenario in which the UK would call this off between now and March 2019. But for all their dismay at the time of the vote, I think a lot of people in the Union have reconciled themselves to the UK's departure, and see the bright side, and would be a bit discomfited if it were to be called off now.

A recent opinon poll in France found that more people welcomed the UK's departure than regretted it. That's public opinion, of course; it doesn't necessarily reflect the establishment view. And it's just one country. But it may be a straw in the wind.

This does seem to be the case. I'm still hopeful that this nonsense can be stopped at some point though.

ambro25

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The point about Greece may not be as solid as I thought then. However, I think it's fair to say that many people on the EU-UK divide would much rather that Brexit simply went away rather than proceeding with it.

I'd never disagree with that one. But that's just me, because I made a life of sitting on that divide, like millions of other EU nationals in the UK, and like UK nationals in the EU.

In the meantime, life, influence trafficking and political play goes on, far above our heads.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't know. We've seen that the Brexiteers had sweet feck all in their hand. They've been bluffing only now they've been called. There are no trade deals in the works, no plan to tap into emerging markets and not even a chance of bolstering the embattled NHS.

Ah well, now it's my turn not to be so sure (;)), because the above (bit in bold) is still very much party line at the DExEU I'm afraid.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This does seem to be the case. I'm still hopeful that this nonsense can be stopped at some point though.

I think that ship sailed at the GE 2017. The last chance saloon that I can see, realistically, is the publication or leaking of the UK sectoral analyses (see pages 24/25 of the above link for the list).

And even then, I'm still not sure that it'd be enough to sway public opinion sufficiently to exert a political about-face. Because then, there would be the question of what the EU asks the UK to surrender and/or take up, for being allowed to escape the consequences of its premature Article 50 triggering.

Now that might be my realpolitik fibre humming again here, but -to echo Peregrinus point about 'guts' above- the EU would be daft (not to say irresponsible) to not put in place some buffers, safety measures or other guarantees in place against a re-run of the whole fiasco in so many years' time. Coercing the UK into the €zone might achieve that more surely than killing off the rebate (even though I'll confess that I can't really see how that would fly politically in the UK).

ancapailldorcha

ambro25 wrote: »

I think that ship sailed at the GE 2017. The last chance saloon that I can see, realistically, is the publication or leaking of the UK sectoral analyses.

And even then, I'm still not sure that it'd be enough to sway public opinion sufficiently to exert a political about-face. Because then, there would be the question of what the EU asks the UK to surrender and/or take up, for being allowed to escape the consequences of its premature Article 50 triggering.

Depends. Currently, Theresa May has no majority. She's had to do a deal with the DUP. She has to produce a deal which will somehow placate both her paleosceptics (including the DUP) and what remains of the pro-EU wing of the Conservative party.

I'm convinced that Jeremy Corbyn or someone under his wing will be PM soon. It would take very little to topple the current government. The problem is that Labour needs to decided what it wants vis-á-vis Europe and soon.

ambro25 wrote: »

Now that might be my realpolitik fibre humming again here, but -to echo Peregrinus post above- the EU would be daft (not to say irresponsible) to not put in place some buffers, safety measures or other guarantees in place against a re-run of the whole fiasco in so many years' time. Coercing the UK into the €zone might achieve that more surely than killing off the rebate (even though I'll confess that I can't really see how that would fly politically in the UK).

Well, the Leave campaign was a Phoenix which emerged from the ashes of the Business for Sterling group which was established to prevent adopting the Euro. It would be an unacceptable concession for the UK to adopt the Euro, especially with the Greek crisis being so recent.

I think a sufficiently skilled negotiator like Keir Starmer or Nick Clegg could keep much or even possibly all of the status quo if Brexit were to be abandoned.

Professor Moriarty

Could sex and sexual harrassment be the downfall of Brexit or at least a hard Brexit?

A dossier drawn up by staff working with the Conservative Party has listed 36 MPs accused of inappropriate sexual behaviour. The document includes allegations against 21 serving or former ministers, which range from groping to paying money to keep women quiet.

The link above lists some very serious allegations. Given the extremely tight numbers that May is working with, this augurs very badly for the stability of her government.

Zubeneschamali

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm convinced that Jeremy Corbyn or someone under his wing will be PM soon. It would take very little to topple the current government. The problem is that Labour needs to decided what it wants vis-á-vis Europe and soon.

Maybe - I think Labour have been doing well by NOT calling out what they want, allowing them to highlight the divisions on the Tory benches without providing targets.

ancapailldorcha

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Maybe - I think Labour have been doing well by NOT calling out what they want, allowing them to highlight the divisions on the Tory benches without providing targets.

Interesting point though I think the anti-elitist snake unleashed by the Brexiteers is about to turn on the Tory party given the effects of austerity and poor growth.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Maybe - I think Labour have been doing well by NOT calling out what they want, allowing them to highlight the divisions on the Tory benches without providing targets.

Of course, it also allows them to avoid addressing their own divisions over Brexit, which will themselves become problematic if Labour takes power before Brexit is concluded.

A Little Pony

Peregrinus wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Maybe - I think Labour have been doing well by NOT calling out what they want, allowing them to highlight the divisions on the Tory benches without providing targets.

Of course, it also allows them to avoid addressing their own divisions over Brexit, which will themselves become problematic if Labour takes power before Brexit is concluded.

Labour actually gaining power could very well help Brexit process if an election is called for next year as the Marxists at the helm of Labour hate the EU and the capitalist system which it is. So from a pro EU point of view even if you don't like Labour, it might not be the worst thing to happen.

LeinsterDub

The British government has said it expects to have hired up to 8,000 new staff by next year as it steps up preparations for leaving the European Union - with or without an exit agreement.

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/1031/916519-uk-to-hire-8-000-staff-by-next-year-to-gear-up-for-brex/

8,000 new staff, that's a lot of nurses and doctors that could of been hired

Peregrinus

A Little Pony wrote: »

Labour actually gaining power could very well help Brexit process if an election is called for next year as the Marxists at the helm of Labour hate the EU and the capitalist system which it is.

Some do. Others in the Labour party are quite pro-EU. The truth is that Labour is as divided as the Tories, but they have the luxury of being in opposition, which means that they are not as troubled by their divisions. That will change if they come to power.

A Little Pony wrote: »

So from a pro EU point of view even if you don't like Labour, it might not be the worst thing to happen.

I'm not following you. I remain to be convinced that Labour can get it together over Europe any more than the Tories can, so if Labour comes to power that doesn't necessarily point to a softer Brexit, or a reversal of Brexit.

I suppose that, because they have done less of the nailing their colour to the mast and denouncing one another as traitors and enemies of the people, the various Labour factions have a bit more freedom of manouvre, and are better positioned to compromise on some consensus middle-ground approach to Brexit than the Tories are. But that may be wishful thinking on my part.

demfad

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's an academic question, since I don't see any realistic scenario in which the UK would call this off between now and March 2019. But for all their dismay at the time of the vote, I think a lot of people in the Union have reconciled themselves to the UK's departure, and see the bright side, and would be a bit discomfited if it were to be called off now.

I think there is at least one realistic scenario:

Serious Russian/Alt-right interference and subversion is suspected in the Brexit referendum prompting large investigations.

In the last day, Russian ambassador to the UK Alexander Yakovenko was named as a contact for indicted Trump National Security campaign aide George Papadopoulos.
Aaron Banks and Andy wigmore had 2 extensive 6 hour meetings with him during the Brexit campaign.
Last week a huge revelation that Cambridge Analytica contacted Julian Assange to offer to help distribute the stolen emails. As well as working for Trump CA was involved with UKIPs (Farage, Banks, Wigmore) Leave.EU campaign. CAs sister company AggregateIQ was paid by ALL 5 leave campaigns including £3.9m (over half allowance) by official Vote Leave.
Farage has been named as a person of interest in the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign.

It looks increasingly like Brexit and Trump are instrinsically linked via the right wing grouping of Mercers/Bannon/Farage/Banks/Wigmore etc using CA and Breitbart and other RW tools and media including Mercers vast propaganda inter- network. It looks like this group formed an axis with Russian Gov/Intelligence to coordinate to achieve these mutually beneficial results.

This means that there is a de facto investigation into Brexit being carried out in the US as the exact same bad actors were involved in both.

IMO Brexit is more vulnerable than people realise. I would be confident that an event like Nigel Farage being indicted would pose a massive existential danger to it for several reasons.

There are other dominoes to fall such as the release of the impact assessments on 58 sectors of the British economy (88% of the total).
When these are revealed to be disastrous....

Legal opinion seems to be that A50 can be revoked in 'Good faith'.



Just to show that the Brexit-Russia-US RW axis is being increasingly reported on: Here are some recent articles:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/30/revealed-ukip-whistleblowers-raised-fears-about-breitbart-influence-on-brexit?CMP=share_btn_tw

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/28/trump-assange-bannon-farage-bound-together-in-unholy-alliance?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/21/russia-free-pass-undermine-british-democracy-vladimir-putin?CMP=share_btn_twCMP=share_btn_tw

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/a-suspected-network-of-13000-twitter-bots-pumped-out-pro?utm_term=.aeVJ5DKJQ#.wdNp06Mpa

steddyeddy

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Interesting point though I think the anti-elitist snake unleashed by the Brexiteers is about to turn on the Tory party given the effects of austerity and poor growth.

Like the anti-Trump backlash I don't know why this labelled an anti-elitist movement. The cause of Brexit was an argument between two old Etonians.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

I suppose that, because they have done less of the nailing their colour to the mast and denouncing one another as traitors and enemies of the people, the various Labour factions have a bit more freedom of manouvre, and are better positioned to compromise on some consensus middle-ground approach to Brexit than the Tories are.

I think it is clear that the Tories cannot now accept a Norway solution even though that is what the likes of the Telegraph were screaming for before the referendum, and UKIP referred to it as desirable many times.

Labour have not painted them into that corner.

murphaph

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Could sex and sexual harrassment be the downfall of Brexit or at least a hard Brexit?

A dossier drawn up by staff working with the Conservative Party has listed 36 MPs accused of inappropriate sexual behaviour. The document includes allegations against 21 serving or former ministers, which range from groping to paying money to keep women quiet.

The link above lists some very serious allegations. Given the extremely tight numbers that May is working with, this augurs very badly for the stability of her government.

It would serve her right. I'm convinced the main reason for calling the GE this year was because several of her MPs in the last parliament were or are under suspicion and or investigation for fraud related to their previous campaigns. She wanted to wipe the slate clean as it were. If some other legal bear trap can topple her I'd have a wry smile on my face for sure.

Calina

murphaph wrote: »

It would serve her right. I'm convinced the main reason for calling the GE this year was because several of her MPs in the last parliament were or are under suspicion and or investigation for fraud related to their previous campaigns. She wanted to wipe the slate clean as it were. If some other legal bear trap can topple her I'd have a wry smile on my face for sure.

I seem to recall there were issues with campaign finance returns for the previous election yes. But I also recall the general discussion the day before she called the election being she'd be mad not to given the polling figure at that time. I know that popularly, Nick Timothy is given credit for the election this year. It seems to me that this was not dealt with strategically.

My main concern at the moment is that the high profile alternatives aren't great. The Tory party has no options at all. Labour's problem is that Keir Starmer and Jeremy Corbyn probably don't fully agree on what strategy to follow with respect to Brexit if they suddenly wound up in charge. I'm not sure that a change is necessarily beneficial in other words.

A Little Pony

Peregrinus wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Labour actually gaining power could very well help Brexit process if an election is called for next year as the Marxists at the helm of Labour hate the EU and the capitalist system which it is.

Some do.  Others in the Labour party are quite pro-EU.  The truth is that Labour is as divided as the Tories, but they have the luxury of being in opposition, which means that they are not as troubled by their divisions.  That will change if they come to power.

A Little Pony wrote: »

So from a pro EU point of view even if you don't like Labour, it might not be the worst thing to happen.

I'm not following you.  I remain to be convinced that Labour can get it together over Europe any more than the Tories can, so if Labour comes to power that doesn't necessarily point to a softer Brexit, or a reversal of Brexit.  

I suppose that, because they have done less of the nailing their colour to the mast and denouncing one another as traitors and enemies of the people, the various Labour factions have a bit more freedom of manouvre, and are better positioned to compromise on some consensus middle-ground approach to Brexit than the Tories are.  But that may be wishful thinking on my part.

The government has to deliver Brexit, regardless if it is Labour or Tories, by March 2019 it will be done as far as being out of the EU is concerned.

murphaph

Calina wrote: »

I seem to recall there were issues with campaign finance returns for the previous election yes. But I also recall the general discussion the day before she called the election being she'd be mad not to given the polling figure at that time. I know that popularly, Nick Timothy is given credit for the election this year. It seems to me that this was not dealt with strategically.

My main concern at the moment is that the high profile alternatives aren't great. The Tory party has no options at all. Labour's problem is that Keir Starmer and Jeremy Corbyn probably don't fully agree on what strategy to follow with respect to Brexit if they suddenly wound up in charge. I'm not sure that a change is necessarily beneficial in other words.

You might well be right in fairness. I just despise May so much.

Labour are really quite pathetic in all this. Afraid to take a strong position either way, even as the cliff edge comes into sight.

Brexit is such a watershed moment that the UK needs a cross party movement to form a brand new party or to coalesce around the liberals who are more or less unashamedly anti-Brexit already.

Maybe too many MPs genuinely still believe it'll somehow be alright on the night. My good mate who voted Brexit listens to my arguments but can't quite believe there could be airline chaos etc. if there's a no deal walk out. Perhaps this attitude permeates to the highest levels.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This does seem to be the case. I'm still hopeful that this nonsense can be stopped at some point though.

Good evening!

With all due respect this is a delusional pipe dream. The only nonsense is the idea that Brexit will be stopped.

The referendum has sealed the path the UK is going down. Membership of the EU wasn't working and that's why coming out and staying out is the right answer. That's good for the UK and the EU in the long term.

The sooner that reality is embraced firmly by all involved the sooner post-Brexit clarity will be reached.

Brexit isn't going to be the end of the world. The worst of the doomsday scenarios have been shown to be wrong so far. Keep calm and carry on - that's the best policy. Keep the speculative Halloween stories at home.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

The referendum has sealed the path the UK is going down. Membership of the EU wasn't working and that's why coming out and staying out is the right answer. That's good for the UK and the EU in the long term.

By what metric was EU membership not working? Source please. By the way, I'm still awaiting a source for your claim that most remain voters are Eurofederalists.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Brexit isn't going to be the end of the world. The worst of the doomsday scenarios have been shown to be wrong so far. Keep calm and carry on - that's the best policy. Keep the speculative Halloween stories at home.

The only person peddling this drivel is you. You have yet to provide any sort of evidence that things are going well so I'm afraid you'll just have to get used to the pessimism on and off this board until something positive emerges from this debacle.

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

With all due respect this is a delusional pipe dream. The only nonsense is the idea that Brexit will be stopped.

All due respect but I don't think that's for you to decide. Either way, you don't get to tell people that they cannot hope. In the words of Aragorn, there is always hope.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The referendum has sealed the path the UK is going down. Membership of the EU wasn't working and that's why coming out and staying out is the right answer.

In what way was membership not working? I'd like a detailed answer and not handwavy nonsense about how people were just unhappy.

solodeogloria wrote: »

That's good for the UK and the EU in the long term.

I think ultimately the long term is as the long term happens. As Aslan said nobody is ever told what would have happened. But given much of the commentary lately suggests that the UK will take a substantial step backwards in GDP for 20-30 years, then I'd have to see that not happening at the very least for the word "good" to be appropriate.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The sooner that reality is embraced firmly by all involved the sooner post-Brexit clarity will be reached.

The reality is embraced by the EU. Unfortunately, despite actively wanting Brexit, reality is not embraced by the UK.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Brexit isn't going to be the end of the world.

No For that we have climate change.

However, we're not in the zone about talking about whether it will be the end of the world or not. That lacks ambition. What matters is whether it can be good.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The worst of the doomsday scenarios have been shown to be wrong so far.

I'm not certain I would agree with you. The currency dropped substantially post vote, jobs are are starting to leave. BoE estimates 75000 jobs are directly at risk in the banking sector and those jobs support a lot of service jobs.

The UK has a low unemployment rate at the moment but the dropping of the unemployment rate did not see much of a rise in payroll taxes. Many working people are on income support of one kind or another. Even if Brexit never happened, this would augur badly for UK plc.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Keep calm and carry on - that's the best policy. Keep the speculative Halloween stories at home.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Keep calm and carry on is not a policy. At best, it's a slogan. The UK needs more than slogans to progress. I'm disappointed that you think you can close the debate in this way.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

With all due respect this is a delusional pipe dream. The only nonsense is the idea that Brexit will be stopped.

The referendum has sealed the path the UK is going down. Membership of the EU wasn't working and that's why coming out and staying out is the right answer. That's good for the UK and the EU in the long term.

The sooner that reality is embraced firmly by all involved the sooner post-Brexit clarity will be reached.

Brexit isn't going to be the end of the world. The worst of the doomsday scenarios have been shown to be wrong so far. Keep calm and carry on - that's the best policy. Keep the speculative Halloween stories at home.

You mentioned in an earlier post that taking back as much control as possible in the headline issues is the best option. You never really expanded what as much control as possible is? What control would you be happy to concede to the EU in law? Same question for borders, money and trade policy?

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

Brexit isn't going to be the end of the world. The worst of the doomsday scenarios have been shown to be wrong so far. Keep calm and carry on - that's the best policy. Keep the speculative Halloween stories at home.

The conversion is complete! Keep calm and carry on => we have no idea what to do next, we just hope someone will figure it out....

Professor Moriarty

A Little Pony wrote: »

The government has to deliver Brexit, regardless if it is Labour or Tories, by March 2019 it will be done as far as being out of the EU is concerned.

You had better ring May and tell her that her transition request isn't a runner.

Sam Russell

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/1031/916519-uk-to-hire-8-000-staff-by-next-year-to-gear-up-for-brex/

8,000 new staff, that's a lot of nurses and doctors that could of been hired

I would guess the cost of a civil servant would be of the order of £100,000 per year if office, pension, etc is included. That would suggest £800 m/year as a direct cost for Brexit. Add in the direct cost for customs staff probably adds as much again. Then there is all the new staff to replicate or replace EU standards and other services. We know about the EMA, Euratom, EBA, and there are many more.

If the additional cost to industry to comply with these new systems of standards and customs and other administration, I think that Brexit will cost significantly more than remaining part of the EU. That is of course before the lost trade and reduced GDP.

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

With all due respect this is a delusional pipe dream. The only nonsense is the idea that Brexit will be stopped.

The referendum has sealed the path the UK is going down. Membership of the EU wasn't working and that's why coming out and staying out is the right answer. That's good for the UK and the EU in the long term.

The sooner that reality is embraced firmly by all involved the sooner post-Brexit clarity will be reached.

Brexit isn't going to be the end of the world. The worst of the doomsday scenarios have been shown to be wrong so far. Keep calm and carry on - that's the best policy. Keep the speculative Halloween stories at home.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I suppose the worst of the doomsday scenarios - immediate collapse of the British economy - have been shown to be wrong so far, but I would guess that over 90% of the doomsday scenarios are still in play, while only about 30% of the best outcome scenarios are in play (where is that £350m for the NHS? Haven't seen the queues of countries lining up to do trade deals - apart from Americans with their chlorinated chickens).

Really Interested

blanch152 wrote: »

I suppose the worst of the doomsday scenarios - immediate collapse of the British economy - have been shown to be wrong so far, but I would guess that over 90% of the doomsday scenarios are still in play, while only about 30% of the best outcome scenarios are in play (where is that £350m for the NHS? Haven't seen the queues of countries lining up to do trade deals - apart from Americans with their chlorinated chickens).

The same Americans who put almost a 300% tariff on planes where a major part comes from NI. That what Brexit people forgot outside a free trade area you can agree tariff free trade and when politics comes to play your exports can face huge tariffs over night.

After seeing how the U.K. plays expect to see some serious tariffs in the future.

Capt'n Midnight

breatheme wrote: »

I hope they don't get passporting rights, unless there's also Freedom of Movement.

The EEA countries have to accept Freedom of Movement without getting passporting rights so very unlikely especially since if they give those rights to the UK they'd have to offer them to the Norwegians and Swiss too.


The UK might mention the Swiss model as way to get more access.

But Switzerland was only given those rights because it looked like they were going to join the EU. Also with the exception of flights to non-EU destinations all movement of goods and people has to go through the EU. The UK leaving is a completely different situation

Also it does NOT offer passporting rights for financial services.


So the UK needs a closer deal than Norway get.
And Norway pay as much per capita as the UK does.

It's like being an Associate Member of a club and still having to pay the full membership price.


https://infacts.org/briefings/swiss-option/

Gerry T

solodeogloria wrote:

The referendum has sealed the path the UK is going down. Membership of the EU wasn't working and that's why coming out and staying out is the right answer. That's good for the UK and the EU in the long term.

Wrong and wrong.
The referendum was advisory and means absolutely nothing. Parliament will decide most likely.
Membership was most definitely working and the UK prospered. But that wasn't enough but it most definitely was working.
I'm sure with time it will be sortef

mickoneill31

I've been listening to this podcast. This week's is good.

http://pca.st/wR6O
That's a link from pocket casts. I'm sure searching for Brexit podcast will find it in whatever app you use. It's the Oct 31 episode.

They talk about what Brexit means for the scientific community. It's another example of taking back a little bit of control while getting rid of loads more.

Chips Lovell

Interesting piece in the Economist this week about how fiendishly difficult it is to calculate the pension liability element of the UK exit bill. The EU doesn't pre-fund it's pensions so, on the face of it, it should be relatively straightforward. But, the discount rate it uses in its accounts is calculated in a different way to the one applied to contributions of employees.

One potential easy solution would be for Britain to just pay its share every year, but this probably wouldn't go down well with the pro-Brexit press as it could potentially be funding pensions until 2070 or so.

However, there was this amusing bit at the end of the piece:

Perhaps some cunning British civil servant has found a way of escaping this dilemma. When Buttonwood contacted the Department for Exiting the EU (DEXEU), he was told it was a matter for the Treasury; the Treasury said it was a matter for DEXEU. There was no news on whether either department planned to hold its Christmas party in a brewery.

It's all very Yes Minister.

Gerry T

blanch152 wrote:

I suppose the worst of the doomsday scenarios - immediate collapse of the British economy - have been shown to be wrong so far, but I would guess that over 90% of the doomsday scenarios are still in play, while only about 30% of the best outcome scenarios are in play (where is that £350m for the NHS? Haven't seen the queues of countries lining up to do trade deals - apart from Americans with their chlorinated chickens).

Was doomsday not a prediction of brexit. Brexit hasn't happened yet and a fiscal prediction would take several years to manifest. The UK is a large economy and will have traction resisting a slow down, but that won't last forever.

demfad

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!


Brexit isn't going to be the end of the world. The worst of the doomsday scenarios have been shown to be wrong so far. Keep calm and carry on - that's the best policy. Keep the speculative Halloween stories at home.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Perhaps if Chief Brexiter David Davis would release the 58 Brexit impact reports he commissioned instead of suppressing the results everybody (including Brexiters) could make a more informed judgement on Brexit's likely impact.

He won't though. Objective information is the enemy of Brexit.

The challenge for remainers is to patiently get the information on what Brexit actually means out to everyone.

demfad

Jim2007 wrote: »

The conversion is complete! Keep calm and carry on => we have no idea what to do next, we just hope someone will figure it out....

I've heard the term 'wing growers' mentioned. They are prepared to jump off a cliff confident they will somehow grow wings on the way down.

Peregrinus

Gerry T wrote: »

Was doomsday not a prediction of brexit. Brexit hasn't happened yet and a fiscal prediction would take several years to manifest. The UK is a large economy and will have traction resisting a slow down, but that won't last forever.

There were some predictions to the effect that even a Brexit vote would have such an impact on business and market confidence that it would lead to immediate and dramatic consequences. Apart from a dramatic decline in the value of sterling those immediate consequences did not ensue.

But, basically, you're right. The fact that the most overwrought and overblown predictions from the remain side haven't eventuated doesn't mean that the more reasonable and thoughtful predictions won't eventuate. And of course for the most part its the predictions of the Brexit side that are not being borne out - at least, those of them which should have been borne out in the time since the vote. The promise of all that extra lolly being avaiable for worthy causes like the NHS was revealed as bogus even before the vote, the assurance that the UK could trade on the same terns with the EU but not accept free movement has not been borne out, and the claim that a UK/EU trade deal would be the easiest thing to negotiate turns out to be incorrect. We'll know on Brexit day whether the UK really will be ready to hit the ground running with a bunch of really spiffy free trade deals; right now, it's not looking very promising.

Can anybody, in fact - not looking at anyone in particular, solo - can anybody point to a quantifiable Brexit promise which has been borne out at this stage?

ambro25

Peregrinus wrote: »

<...> Can anybody, in fact - not looking at anyone in particular, solo - can anybody point to a quantifiable Brexit promise which has been borne out at this stage?

Reducing net EU immigration levels, I'd say (but presently lack the resources to search for a corroborating link or two).

It's still early days of course, but the Brexit EU immigration message, honed and refined as it has been by the Home Office since, has got through loud and clear throughout the EU27 and the resident EU immigrants since June 2016: more EU immigrants leaving, less EU immigrants arriving.

I'll pass on the fact that the UK achieved this result through tanking its more noble and desirable societal brand values.

Professor Moriarty

demfad wrote: »

I've heard the term 'wing growers' mentioned. They are prepared to jump off a cliff confident they will somehow grow wings on the way down.

Perhaps May, Fox, Davies and Johnson can be compared to Icarus and the Sun to a glorious imperial past.

demfad

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/01/electoral-commission-to-investigate-arron-banks-brexit-donations-eu-referendum?CMP=share_btn_tw

The UK electoral commission finally going to investigate Arron Banks and the source of his funding of various EU campaigns. This new investigation into Banks and his entity 'Better for the Country Limited' announced today.

There is already a separate investigation from into Leave.EU, which Banks' also funded.
The main question here is whether or not 'Better for the Country Limited' was the true source of donations made to referendum campaigners in its name or if it was acting as an agent. If it was an agent, who was it an agent for to the value of £2.3m and why didn't they declare it publicly?

The Electoral Commission will investigate donations worth £2.3m, assessing whether Banks was the “true source” of loans made in his name. It will also establish whether Better for the Country was the “true source” of donations made to Brexit campaigners or whether it was “acting as an agent” for some other source of funds. Banks is a director of 'Better for the Country' and the majority shareholder.

The money given by Banks to Leave.EU in the run-up to the referendum was believed to be the biggest donation in British political history. Banks has previously claimed he is worth £100m. An estimate by the Sunday Times puts his fortune at £250m. However, an analysis by Open Democracy suggests the actual figure may be considerably lower.

According to a statement from the Commission, the investigation will also investigate whether “any individual facilitated a transaction” with a “non-qualifying person”. Donors from outside the UK and Gibraltar were impermissible donors for referendum campaigning.

The investigation will also assess whether the recipients of the donations took appropriate steps to identify the source of funds.

Questions have been raised about overseas influence in both the referendum campaign and the US election won by Donald Trump. This week, the former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort has surrendered to federal authorities after charges were filed against him over money laundering and conspiracy against the United States. Manafort’s links with Russia have come under close scrutiny.

Banks has boasted about meeting the Russian ambassador, but insisted no political funding came from Russian sources.

[URL="[IMG]http://i67.tinypic.com/2jb2v7n.jpg[/IMG]"][/URL]

In other news, Russia has just denied it!
https://www.rt.com/uk/408461-banks-farage-brexit-interference/

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

Can anybody, in fact - not looking at anyone in particular, solo - can anybody point to a quantifiable Brexit promise which has been borne out at this stage?

Good afternoon!

The negotiations are still ongoing, the verdict on the Brexit campaign will be made as Brexit itself is delivered.

At the current standpoint the UK is doing much better than the prophesies of doom during the referendum campaign suggested.

At the present standpoint taking back control of borders, money and laws are looking very much possible.

Enzokk wrote: »

You mentioned in an earlier post that taking back as much control as possible in the headline issues is the best option. You never really expanded what as much control as possible is? What control would you be happy to concede to the EU in law? Same question for borders, money and trade policy?

You misinterpreted my point. I support getting a deal that provides as much control as possible. This means much more Canada than Norway. This means I don't support any acceptance of freedom of movement, I don't support any deal that would restrict the UK's ability to sign trade deals with other countries or any deal that would see the UK paying huge sums of money. Any shared control should be handled through a joint arbitration panel not through the ECJ.

Gerry T wrote: »

I don't think there's a problem with UK flights landing in the EU provided the flight started outside the EU. My understanding is a UK operator can't fly within the EU, from 1 EU airport to another EU airport.
There's plenty of EU carriers to meet demand.

OK. I don't consider this a massive deal. What proportion of flights on UK carriers are between two non-UK EU cities? I suspect the vast minority. I think the easyJet option is the right approach for business affected by this. As long as UK to EU traffic is not grounded this is fine by me personally.

This means that the Israel option (no ECJ direct jurisdiction) for flights in and out of Britain is a good one. This seems to be a natural consequence of leaving the single market and really not the end of the world.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

listermint

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

The negotiations are still ongoing, the verdict on the Brexit campaign will be made as Brexit itself is delivered.

At the current standpoint the UK is doing much better than the prophesies of doom during the referendum campaign suggested.

At the present standpoint taking back control of borders, money and laws are looking very much possible.



You misinterpreted my point. I support getting a deal that provides as much control as possible. This means much more Canada than Norway. This means I don't support any acceptance of freedom of movement, I don't support any deal that would restrict the UK's ability to sign trade deals with other countries or any deal that would see the UK paying huge sums of money. Any shared control should be handled through a joint arbitration panel not through the ECJ.



OK. I don't consider this a massive deal. What proportion of flights on UK carriers are between two non-UK EU cities? I suspect the vast minority. I think the easyJet option is the right approach for business affected by this. As long as UK to EU traffic is not grounded this is fine by me personally.

This means that the Israel option (no ECJ direct jurisdiction) for flights in and out of Britain is a good one. This seems to be a natural consequence of leaving the single market and really not the end of the world.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Having an Irish EU Passport to use at anytime to ones discretion i do believe would make one believe that nothing is really a big deal. As there is always an 'out' if push came to shove.

demfad

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

The negotiations are still ongoing, the verdict on the Brexit campaign will be made as Brexit itself is delivered.

At the current standpoint the UK is doing much better than the prophesies of doom during the referendum campaign suggested.

At the present standpoint taking back control of borders, money and laws are looking very much possible.

They were always possible. The question is are they possible without the destruction of the UK economy. The impact reports Davis commissioned might shed some light there. But he is afraid to release them even to his own MPs. Why do you think that is?

You misinterpreted my point. I support getting a deal that provides as much control as possible. This means much more Canada than Norway.

Control of what? Under a Canada arrangement the UK wont get near the depth and access to the single market it enjoys now. It LOSES control over how much trade it can do with the EU. The question is which control is more important: Control of free movement or control over the fortunes of your economy.

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

At the current standpoint the UK is doing much better than the prophesies of doom during the referendum campaign suggested.

So says the guy at each passing floor, whilst free-falling off the empire state building :pac:

solodeogloria wrote: »

At the present standpoint taking back control of borders, money and laws are looking very much possible.

Mr Brexit himself, David Davis, disagrees with you on at least the money point.

On the control of borders point, I don't believe we're any further forward than the last time borders were discussed to any extent in the thread. I.e. everyone is still in the pitch-black dark, because NI.

On the control of laws point, I don't believe we're any further forward than the last time the Repeal/Withdrawal Bill was discussed to any extent in the thread. I.e. about 2 or 3 weeks ago when Leadsom cancelled Parliamentary debates about it under threat of a Tory rebellion.

Still, good to see you around still fighting the good fight. Keep the faith and all that

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

OK. I don't consider this a massive deal. What proportion of flights on UK carriers are between two non-UK EU cities? I suspect the vast minority. I think the easyJet option is the right approach for business affected by this. As long as UK to EU traffic is not grounded this is fine by me personally.

This means that the Israel option (no ECJ direct jurisdiction) for flights in and out of Britain is a good one. This seems to be a natural consequence of leaving the single market and really not the end of the world.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The UK has no internationally recognised certification authority for civil aviation. UK aircraft are allowed to fly over/to third countries because the UK airlines are overseen by EASA.

The UK will need to establish a competent and internationally recognised UK equivalent of EASA. Note the CAA does not perform this role. If this authority is not set up on Brexit day then in the event of no deal, UK aircraft would be at best in legal limbo and more likely simply couldn't land anywhere outside the UK.

"The responsibilities of EASA include to analysis and research of safety, authorising foreign operators, giving advice for the drafting of EU legislation, implementing and monitoring safety rules (including inspections in the member states), giving type-certification of aircraft and components as well as the approval of organisations involved in the design, manufacture and maintenance of aeronautical products."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Aviation_Safety_Agency

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

You misinterpreted my point. I support getting a deal that provides as much control as possible. This means much more Canada than Norway. This means I don't support any acceptance of freedom of movement, I don't support any deal that would restrict the UK's ability to sign trade deals with other countries or any deal that would see the UK paying huge sums of money. Any shared control should be handled through a joint arbitration panel not through the ECJ.

What you are posting now is not as much control as possible but full control. Full control of immigration, full control of trade and full control of of laws. So maybe you just made a mistake by now asserting you want to take as much control as possible. I still don't see how you can ask for a arbitrator when you want to participate in a EU institution.

In any case, it seems that the UK will need to at least hope that all other trade deals they currently have as being part of the EU will continue on the other countries goodwill. Seems that the chief negotiator doesn't think that verbal agreements mean much and other countries could well go back on their agreements (UK agreeing to negotiating timeline and trying to throw it out!).

UK Could Lose Free Trade Deals With 65 Countries After Brexit, Admits UK's Top Negotiator

Fox’s chief negotiator Crawford Falconer warned MPs that even agreements struck in principle could be tossed aside as countries seek to improve trade deals.



Falconer, who was appearing alongside Fox, added: “They have agreed that that’s what they intend to do.

“All I would say is I’ve been around negotiations a lot and what people say today sometimes changes tomorrow.”

In other news Liam Fox seems to be on a different wave length than Michael Gove regarding chlorinated chicken from the US. Then again Michael Gove only said the UK will back out of a trade deal if it lowers food safety standards. But the question would surely then be if the UK would consider a food substance banned by the EU as unsafe for consumers.

Brexit: Liam Fox says he has 'no objection' to people eating chlorinated chicken

Liam Fox has said British consumers could be allowed to eat chlorine-washed chicken as he hinted the UK would be open to concessions on standards as part of a prospective trade deal with the United States.

The International Trade Secretary risked reopening the row over post-Brexit food standards, as he said there were “no health reasons” why consumers could not eat chlorinated poultry, which is permitted under US laws but banned in the EU.

His comments appear to contradict Environment Secretary Michael Gove, who vowed that the UK would back out of any trade deal with the US that lowered food standards for consumers.

steddyeddy

The Bank Of England predicts 10,000 jobs lost on Brexit day and 75,000 in the long term.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/01/city-jobs-brexit-bank-of-england-sam-woods

Is there anybody saying that Britain will be better off economically post Brexit? The party line seems to have changed from "we'll be better off making our own deals" to "we'll survive Brexit".

A Little Pony

 But given much of the commentary lately suggests that the UK will take a substantial step backwards in GDP for 20-30 years

What evidence is this based on? I am highly skeptical of such claims which are over a long distance of time when a multitude of things can happen, it's simply silly to speculate that far. Let's see the full picture once Brexit happens and then judge it on it's merits.

A Dub in Glasgo

solodeogloria wrote: »

This means I don't support any acceptance of freedom of movement, I don't support any deal that would restrict the UK's ability to sign trade deals with other countries or any deal that would see the UK paying huge sums of money. Any shared control should be handled through a joint arbitration panel not through the ECJ.

I have not had a peek in here for a while as it was the same stuff restated loads of times but the above is from a person who voted Remain?

I assume you are giving up your right of free movement by giving up your Irish citizneship (forgive me if this was mentioned previously)